"LEARNING

Shuell defines learning as a change in the ability to do something that results from practice or experience and is enduring (Shuell, 1986).

One popular theory of learning is the Schemata Theory. According to Moffitt, schemata
are "organized, structured, clustered and abstract bodies of information that are generally conceptualized as networks of information in which the relationships among facts and actions are specified" (Moffitt, 1989, pp.16-17).

This theory hypothesizes that the schemata a person uses during learning will determine how the
learner interprets the task to be learned, how the learner understands the information, and what knowledge the learner acquires.

Rumelhart and Norman (1978) account for learning based on a schema-based theory of long-term
memory.They posit three distinct types of learning:

1) Restructuring or schema creation, where the learner creates a new schema because none existed into which new information could fit. This is the most difficult type of learning;

2) Accretion, where the learner encodes new information in terms of existing schemata. It is hypothesized that this is how prior knowledge of a topic makes it easier to learn new information on that topic.

3) Tuning or schema evolution, where the learner makes slow refinements or alterations to an existing schema as it is used in different situations. Tuning takes place over the lifetime of an individual and is important in the movement from novice to expert.

Schemata and Prior Learning

Prior knowledge means that facts can be used independently of the context in which they were learned
(Johnson & Kieras, 1983). How much prior knowledge is activated during learning affects what is learned and how meaningful the learned material is. Lack of relevant prior knowledge may cause failure to link new information with existing information that could make the new information easier to understand and remember (Bransford et al., 1982).

Schemata theory is important in explaining how prior knowledge aids in the acquisition of new knowledge.

According to the theory,
-  prior knowledge is stored in schemata.
- New knowledge is either stored in existing schemata (that is, prior knowledge),
  - or in new schemata.
According to Norman, it is easier to store new knowledge in existing schemata than to create new schemata. "When you already have the proper conceptual
framework, accretion is easy, painless, efficient...[but] when there isn't a good conceptual background, then accretion is slow and arduous" (Norman,1993, p. 28).

Gagné describes three ways new learning is influenced by prior knowledge (Gagné, 1980):

1) Prior knowledge helps the learner remember new information by creating more memory cues;

2) Prior knowledge fills gaps in the new knowledge, supplies conventional details, and changes some ideas; and

3) Prior knowledge of simpler component skills is necessary in order to learn new procedural or rule-governed intellectual skills.

Even though numerous studies have shown that prior knowledge is very important in learning new information, "reminders of previous relevant learning tend to be included casually and incidentally in instruction, rather than deliberately" (Gagné, 1980, p. 10).

How can people who lack prior knowledge be helped to learn new information? Moffitt suggests reducing the perceived arbitrariness of the new material by providing people with
organizational schemes, or teaching them temporary models (Moffitt, 1989).

Rieber suggests incidental learning as a way of orienting students to subsequent instruction. Incidental learning could provide the students with prior knowledge they could then use in later intentional instruction (Rieber, 1991). This is born out by studies by Jenkins et al., who provided incidental prior exposure to new words, in order to see if students would learn those words more easily when they read them in context (Jenkins et al., 1984). This is discussed in more detail below under Incidental Learning."

See much more in the full original: http://www.msu.edu/~sleightd/inclearn.html
See also
LJ_SCHANK
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/
NL_Schemata Theory
http://www.msu.edu/~sleightd/inclearn.html
NL_Moffitt and  Schemata
http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/Tucson/3.htm
http://www.izhd.uni-hamburg.de/Book/Ch3/PseudoTheories.html
NL_TI_Rumelhart

"II. Introduction
Whether we teach beginning language classes or advanced literature courses, we as instructors have all too frequently experienced the frustration of assigning a reading text as homework, only to have our students tell us at the next class meeting
that they "didn't understand it."

In recent years, a growing amount of research has focused on second- and foreign-language reading, and educators have found a variety of research-based strategies to help students become more effective readers. Yet several concerns still need to be addressed. Knutson has pointed out that while reading research has led to the development of some excellent pedagogical materials at the beginning and intermediate levels, this research has not yet been adapted to
teaching materials at the more advanced levels.

As a result, instructors of these courses still have few published resources upon
which to draw (Knutson 12). However, even instructors well-versed in the latest research results have difficulty finding time to include adequate instruction in reading strategies in an already over-crowded syllabus. This paper will help solve such problems by indicating ways in which computer technology can improve the reading skills of students at all levels outside the classroom.

First, we will outline recent findings in first and second language (L1 and L2) reading research and the applicability of this research to teaching reading in the foreign-language classroom.

Next, we will describe in detail two projects on the Macintosh which incorporate research-based reading strategies.

Both are designed to make language students of German and French more effective, independent readers.

Additionally, we will show how instructors can reduce the amount of time needed to prepare exercises by using user-friendly authoring software that can be adapted to a wide variety of texts and text types.

Finally, we will discuss ways in which these interactive student-centered programs are successful, both in teaching students effective reading strategies and in helping them to become proficient, independent readers.


III. Reading research
Recent L1 and L2 reading research has focused on reading as a dynamic process in which the reader interacts with the text to create meaning (Carrell and Eisterhold; Barnett 1989; Swaffer; Omaggio).

According to this view, reading is a "meaning-constructing system" that readers use to try to understand a text by relating it to what they already know (Bernhardt 1986a: 26).

The knowledge that readers bring to a text, or "reader schemata," include:
1) familiarity with background schemata, i.e., the topic of the text as well as cultural biases and real-life experiences which readers bring to the text;
2) an understanding of formal schemata, i.e., of how different text types are organized; and
3) knowledge of the linguistic code of the target language (Carrell and Eisterhold; Bernhardt 1984; Barnett 1989; Omaggio).

To understand a text, then, it is not enough for the reader simply to know the meaning of each individual word in isolation; rather, comprehension "involves fitting the meaning of the message to the schema that one has in mind" (Omaggio 135).

Readers who utilize background and formal schemata to make sense of a text use "top-down processing," whereas students who rely on linguistic clues to decode a text use "bottom-up processing" (Carrell 1984b; Carrell and Eisterhold).

Several studies have shown that proficient readers employ top-down and
bottom-up processing simultaneously, drawing both on background and formal schemata as well as linguistic decoding, whereas less proficient students depend primarily on bottom-up processing (Carrell 1989; Barnett 1989; Koda).


Background Schemata
According to theories of schema and interactive reading, comprehension occurs when readers are successful in activating schemata that logically match those of the text. In order to schematize, students must:
1) realize that they need to do so; and
2) be able to associate new meanings with the background knowledge they already possess (Swaffer 126).

Pre-reading exercises and a thoughtful choice of texts have been shown to be very effective in helping students schematize, for a variety of reasons.

First, pre-reading activities can provide students with a clear purpose for reading, without which they tend to read aimlessly, fail to schematize, and, as a consequence, often misread the text (Swaffer). Pre-reading activities can also increase student
comprehension and recall by bringing up their background knowledge, helping them anticipate the content of the reading, and encouraging them to make predictions (Bernhardt 1984; Carrell 1983; Carrell 1984b; Barnett 1989; Swaffer).

Choosing topics familiar to readers can also increase comprehension, since the more readers know about a topic the more likely it is that they will bring up appropriate schemata. In fact, research shows that topic familiarity is the single most important factor in determining student comprehension and can make up for linguistic difficulty, especially at the beginning level (Bernhart 1986; Swaffer).

When students are dealing with topics which are unfamiliar or cultural-specific, pre-reading activities can provide them with the necessary background and cultural information to allow them to activate appropriate schemata (Barnett 1989;
Carrell and Eisterhold; Omaggio).

Based on a study of students in German, Bernhart stresses the importance of providing activities and background information before students read the text, since an initial inappropriate choice of schemata can cause the reader to completely distort the text's meaning (1986a: 26-27)."

See much more in the full original:
http://gonzo.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96/Panels/Haggstrom/HAGGSTRO.html  

See also
Script Theory
Piaget's Theory of Scheme: http://www2.educ.ksu.edu/faculty/mcgrathD/Spring00/Piaget2.htm

See much more in the full original:

See also
NL_Script   and  Schank
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/schank.html
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/NODE-304-pg.html